Re: LFS vs procfs on SunOS

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Filip Hajny wrote:
 > On 5. 3. 2012, at 19:46, David Holland wrote:
 > > Can you explain *why* it's deliberately broken? Is it because their
 > > kernel procfs code is bollocks and needs to be kept in a padded cell,
 > > or is it some kind of library/headers management issue? Or is it just
 > > Sun being deliberately difficult to discourage use of 32-bit code
 > > and/or large files?
 > 
 > This is the only relevant discussion that I could find (now that
 > Jive is dead):
 > 
 > "[...] the kernel has no way of knowing that a 32-bit process was
 > compiled with large file support, only that it's a 32-bit process
 > vs a 64-bit process. So to do what you want to do, there's no good
 > way to use the more painless large file compilation environment,
 > and you end up doing what they other poster said and using
 > the transitional interfaces of the *64() form."
 > 
 > http://www.mail-archive.com/opensolaris-code%opensolaris.org@localhost/msg08229.html
 > 
 > http://www.mail-archive.com/opensolaris-code%opensolaris.org@localhost/msg05873.html

Gross. So basically the kernel procfs code is bollocks, and then they
compounded it by mishandling the header files. And all in the name of
chasing a nonexistent problem...

I don't see any reason to cater to this stupidity.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost